The deficiency of information in his explanation, I think, is not attributable to Gen. Başbuğ, but to the team of experts providing him with that information. Already Cihan's general manager, Abdülhamit Bilici, had told the general public the details of the incident. Obviously the practice of applying "accreditation to the death" has hurt our nation deeply. The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) must be aware of this fact, as Başbuğ did not try to hide it. But what about the journalists? Didn't they feel a pang of conscience? Couldn't they raise their voices against this unfair treatment and say, "This is unacceptable"? Couldn't they consider promoting freedom of the press with a sense of professional attachment? If they really did, would the chief of general staff feel the need to start his explanations by saying, "You didn't ask, but let me answer"? This sentence deserves to be recorded in history.There are other points that must be recorded. For instance, an official from the Press Council sent an email to me -- with some reproach. I was absolutely transfixed when I read it. That email advocated the accreditation practice. When this email is read in light of what Gen. Başbuğ said, one concludes that the chief of general staff is more democratic and liberal than the executives of the Press Council. Actually, if this was not the case, the title of this article would not be what it is now.
That e-mail says that because the Cihan reporter did not go to the mountain on board the helicopter in question, it was reasonable for that helicopter to leave him behind on top of the mountain in the freezing cold. You wouldn't believe this, but this is the approach of the message. Too bad! Apparently, some council members have completely failed to understand the situation. Asking them two simple questions will suffice. For instance, if the Cihan reporter had asked the helicopter to take him to the mountain in that freezing weather, like the Doğan news agency's reporter, would they have told him, "Of course you can come with us"? Suppose that no such demand was made so that no such humiliating censure had been made; still, can it be considered reasonable to leave a journalist on top of a mountain in the kind of weather conditions that led to the death of Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu? Moreover, the military officers had told the Cihan reporter in question to "come with them" because of the bad weather. As he was about to get on the helicopter, a meddlesome military officer asked him, "Which agency are you from?" And when the reporter replied, "Cihan," the officer prohibited him from going with them.
If this shameful incident does not hurt the Press Council, which claims to be a professional organization for reporters, and urge it to take action, then it follows that there has been a grave error. Saying, "But your reporter, it is said, did not go there on board that military helicopter," in the face of this disgusting incident is not becoming of a professional organization. So I see nothing that can be done about them but to recall the chief of general staff's explanation. What does Başbuğ say? "If necessary, we carry even terrorists aboard helicopters... If there is any information to the contrary, send it to me and I will examine it. If there is an error, I will accept it and hold the people concerned accountable."
We are obligated to note this important detail. Certain media groups, particularly the Doğan Media Group, did not report on this mountaintop accreditation scandal. This is hard to understand. No one expects them to make comments about the incident or criticize the military. But when they find it too hard to note what really happened, their assertions about "freedom of the press" lose all credibility.
There is another incident that is even funnier. A newspaper recently ran the headline "Beki closed, law opened." It was also about accreditation. Akif Beki, who currently writes columns for the Radikal daily, had revoked the accreditation of a number of journalists when he was working as the chief press advisor to the Prime Ministry. When he was harshly criticized for this, he had said in his defense: "We do not have censure or accreditation practices against any newspaper. We only invalidate the accreditation documents of reporters who write false news." Now, according to the story, the journalists whose accreditation had been revoked appealed to the court, and the court ruled that the removal of their accreditation was illegal. What about the other accreditations? Are they legal?
A newspaper regarded this as an important development with respect to freedom of the press and ran this headline. Well, this is acceptable. But this paper was not as sensitive to the scandalous treatment afforded their fellow colleague who was forsaken on top of a mountain and who was forced to get off the helicopter. Strangely, I know the executives of the newspaper in question, and I am aware of their approach to press freedom and the accreditation issue. They accept that the accreditation practice is wrong. Why are they so shy about this matter? They are harsh in their criticism of the government, the police and the judiciary. Are they silent because of their fear of the military? Those who complain loudly about accreditation by civilian authorities become lenient with respect to military accreditation. Why? The Turkish media is wrapped in shadowy suspicion.
Here it must be noted that the journalists who were victimized by this accreditation have so far refrained from resorting to judicial procedures. Because of their fear? Absolutely not. "Our army should not be defamed. This practice was the result of the abnormal conditions of the Feb. 28 process [referring to the 1997 unarmed military intervention]. When Turkey is normalized, this practice will be abandoned. As the military makes process with respect to the democracy test, this problem will be automatically solved," they reasoned, and waited patiently. Were they wrong in doing so?
There were more questions that were not asked than were asked during the two-and-a-half-hour meeting. Some of the questions sounded as though they were asked upon request. That some of the questions were specifically designed to give the addressee the opportunity to state his position was clearly observable. Whether there should be such conferences in democratic countries is the subject of another discussion, but there is one piece of bitter truth that must be noted: These conferences serve to identify which journalists are independent and democratic and to what extent. Those who feel ill in the face of every democratic move are being recorded in history as they falter now and then. This was what happened after the military memorandum of April 27, 2007. Some figures we thought to be democrats started to sing a different tune. I hope that the credibility of journalism will never be undermined with sentences starting with "You didn't ask, but let me answer."
